I was actually just reading a New York vs. Philly argument (I really don't care who prefers which but the conversation was interesting).

A poster listed the top 10 domestically visited cities in the country from 2009 according to the Dept. of Commerce... Orlando beat NYC by about a million. NYC was far and away the winner with international visitors but I was very surprised to see that. Philly came in at 9th domestically and 14th internationally.

Philadelphia is a pretty cool city. I don't think you natives realize it. I don't live there and have only visited about 4 times, but it's a sophisticated town with great restaurants, the museums and all the obvious historical stuff. The river and bridges are beautiful. And I find the people to be really friendly.

Not sure I agree with Brian that Boston is way ahead of Phila. I think it's the stature of the franchise more than the quality or size of the place that he's thinking about. Philadelphia is a bigger market than Boston and just as nice a place to live. And the people in Boston are not particularly friendly. In fact, they're downright rude. (I realize the players don't give a shit about most of this, but there you are.)

And a lot of people think People from Philadlephia are rude. Boston has a lot of positives that Philly doesn't and vice versa, depends on what you're looking for in a city really. (I live with a Boston resident whose family has been in the area since the mayflower, so I've heard a lot about Boston).

If you want to be near history or colleges, I mean Boston is a place to be, even over Philadlephia, if you prefer winter you might like Boston, all a matter of perspective. (It's a debate in our house where we're going to live when we move back east between where i grew up right outside philly and boston where she grew up).

There's a lot of rude in most major cities if you end up in the wrong place.

I believe the union still has bargaining power because in the end - if there's an agreement it would be certified by a union (see the machinations of the NFL at the end).

I also believe the NBA prefers to work with a union than a decertified union. The union is 'one voice' whereas if there's no union it's freaking chaos. You can't have a collective bargaining agreement without a union can you?

However employers are able to do things that would normally violate antitrust law if those things are agreed to through collective bargaining with a union.

In cases where there has been a CBA employees are prohibited from bringing antitrust suits for a certain (incredibly vague) amount of time. However this time frame can be set in previous CBA. I don't know about the NBA but I remember that the NFL CBA allowed players to bring antitrust suits once the union has certified (and players did bring those suits, the Brady case etc).

SO how does this impact the bargaining. The NBA is engaged in all kinds of antitrust activity in order to run a league. This includes group boycotts (the draft), and market division (restricting franchise movement etc). For example If the players were to succeed in an antitrust suit against the owners they would get basically the max that they could prove someone could sign them for, times three, for each player. This would obviously be a huge amount.

So basically if the union can't decertify, the players can't get out of their collective bargaining relationship with the owners, and will not be able to use the threat of antitrust suits as leverage.

I haven't read the legal arguments (nor would I understand it probably) but do people believe it's an 'all or nothing' type of argument or that the owners are arguing they should be able to void contracts if they wanted. I mean the heat might want to void bosh but it's doubtful they would want to put lebron and wade on the open market.

It's my understanding that all current contracts would be treated as worthless paper, if they win the argument it would be all or nothing. But I'm no lawyer, so who knows. If the teams had the option of voiding whatever contracts they wanted but keeping the ones they wanted, there'd be a sea of detritus on the free agent market instantaneously.

What makes Boston more attractive than Philly? Sure they have a richer history but players don't care about that. They have more talent right now but in this scenario it wouldn't matter since it's a free for all and everyone is starting from scratch.

Philly has better nightclubs, has more than double the population = more jersey sales, and less than an hour away from the casinos. Sure, if I was raising a family Boston would be the better place. But if I am a 26 year old millionaire I would rather live in Philly.

Chicago carries the benefit -- and burden -- of still being associated with MJ23 (Funny that Charlotte gets no credit for its actual and present association with Jordan). As for Boston, I don't think present players care all that much about the legacy of Russell-Cousy-Havlicek-Bird etc. But the most important key would be whether a franchise's cornerstone player decides to stay put. The best example is Durant. If he stays with OKC, that's a destination team, even though its OKC.

I think you're stretching the point. Even without Jordan - Chicago is one of the major american cities. With Durant, Oklahoma City is, well, still Oklahoma City, where college football matters more than the NBA, and the nightlife isn't exactly comparable.

Some guys might go to OKC if they wanna play with durant to win a title, but the city itself offers no benefits, except barbeque?

Are we counting suburbs as part of 'city' areas? I mean I prefer Philadelphia over Boston but I wouldn't LIVE in Philadelphia proper (which isn't cheap either by the way) cause of the public schools. (Boston also has some GREAT schools like Boston Latin).

I love how the players association is encouraging players to find work overseas. LOL. I heard that Kobe would at most make about 12 million for the year. I'd love to see Gilbert Arenas make 100k or Amare make around 3 million. These players are going to lose more than 80% of their salaries.

What I mean is, I think the players' union's position is absurd. Let's take a hypothetical NBA star making $14M per year. If the union would accept the league's pre-lockout offer, his deal drops to say, $12M a year. But instead the union won't even consider the league's offer, and instead that player goes to Europe on $2M a year. It's insane. Take the freaking $12M! If you're playing overseas for $2M instead of in the US for $12M, while at the same time causing most of your teammates to get no income because there aren't enough spots for Americans in Europe, you're a damned fool, in my opinion. Eventually the players will have to fold, because the owners are better off with a permanent lockout than operating under the old CBA. We know the players aren't better off with permanent unemployment.

In my opinion, it's selfish of the stars to take dramatic paycuts to play overseas while their less-desirable brethren who aren't good enough to get the limited spots available to Americans overseas are forced to sit at home and watch the bills pile up while the stars keep collecting checks.

I disagree completely with your logical thought process in this issue. The give back issues isn't about the guy who makes 14 million it's about the guy making league average, or less, and Europe doesn't want those guys anyway.

basically said that the league posted its highest revenue in years and the owners are at fault for mismanaging cost, but of course made no mention of BRI or the revenue sharing system at all. Really just oversimplifying matters. He also called out Stern the other day for collecting his monstrous salary during the lockout (which looks like it might not actually be true)

Yeah that's pretty dumb by my main man Spence. "We boost revenue, they can't keep cost in line. Who's at fault?" LOL try that argument at the thousands of American companies that have laid off workers in the past 4 years. You think the CEO/Board cares whose fault it is that the company lost money? No, they don't. Labor costs must come down, period.

I channel surf during breakfast and watched CNBC get excited at the 'pop' at the market open which I told to my gf would inevitably come down shortly after (after a 150+ opening the dow is down 50, 90 minutes later)

But what they mentioned there was interesting (in regards to labor cost) which might not be applicable to the nba, but in general. As technology advances, productivity increases, and companies need LESS workers to do the same amount of work, and that's just a fact.

Yup, this is totally true. And this is why the percentage of adults employed (a better gauge than the "unemployment rate" which ignores unemployed graduates and people who have given up because they can't find anything better than working at McDonalds) is at 58.2%, the lowest level since 1983.

Oh please. Those poor corporations having to lay people off. They do it because they're too incompetent to make money in their businesses, the financial system is in complete disarray so their investments are bad, and they can only make money by reducing expenses. They end up hiring even more people offshore to keep their businesses afloat, for less money of course. Plus they suck money from you & me by cheating on their taxes and lobbying Congress to cut them even more, which indirectly raises all kinds of costs for actual people. And they have the nerve to whine about high tax rates. It's just cover for moving their companies offshore, which they would do regardless of the tax rates.

Wow. Fine lets have it Spence's way. I would love to see how he feels about cost cutting when he has to fly coach, take amtrack to get from Philly to Ohio, sleep at cheap hotels, not have personal trainers, not have enough coaches, not have good training facilities, etc...

Spencer Hawes is a restricted free agent, with only a qualifying offer (from the old owners)

I'm not saying having an opinion might affect his future earnings, but, well, it's not like he's a super star that every team is going to be hot after. He's not endearing himself to his prospective employers.